• What is the thesis or main claim that the author is making?

In the thesis of this article, Zach Zorich is posing the question as to whether evolution would repeat itself in the same manner if given the opportunity. Would the ape become the neanderthal, would the neanderthal become the human and so on.

  • Does the author make sub-claims? If so, which ones?

The author makes a claim on both sides of the argument. He based one side on the hypothesis that evolution would be unable to recreate its steps and the course of the world would be drastically different the “second time around”. The other side or the argument was the very opposite. Even if evolution would not have taken the same course, the end result would have ended similarly…with human life.

  • What kinds of evidence does the author use? (scholarly? Peer-reviewed? Secondary?)

The author used resources from scholars and scientists.

  • Is the evidence credible? Why or why not?

I would consider the evidence credible based on the resources used from scholarly scientists who have done years (even decades) of intellectual data gathering.

  • What kinds of rhetorical strategies does the author use?

I found evidence of all three types of rhetorical strategies in this article. The author used logo type in that it was a scientific article…facts were necessary. I also recognized ethos type with the credible sources. The author also managed to tie into the pathos type, especially towards the end, bringing it to a close with more of an emotional appeal.

  • Does the author make a logical argument? If so, why?

Yes. And no. He stated the facts of both sides of his argument in a way that didn’t make him seem biased. However, at the end of the article I was having a hard time deciphering which side of the argument he was trying to prove.

  • Did you find any logical fallacies?

As someone who doesn’t really believe in evolution, I would have to say yes…but that’s just my own personal opinion. 😛 Based on the research and authors he used to back up his theories, I would have to say no.

  • Overall, did you find the argument persuasive? Why or why not?

Not really, mainly because of what I stated above. I was unsure of which side was the “persuasive” side.